In 1897, Dr. Philip O’Hanlon, a coroner’s assistant on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, was asked by his then eight-year-old daughter, Virginia, whether Santa Claus really existed. O’Hanlon suggested she write to The Sun, a prominent New York City newspaper at the time, assuring her that “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” So with thanks and apologies to “Is There a Santa Claus?“, September 21, 1897, The New York Sun, staying true to the original text where possible and in the spirit of the festive season . . . .

The Obama administration is on the verge of missing its January deadline for finishing a landmark regulation in the president’s climate agenda — a delay that supporters insist doesn’t imperil the effort, but which comes just as a hostile GOP is about to take control of the Senate.

The EPA has a Jan. 8 legal deadline to finish the regulation, aimed at throttling carbon pollution from future power plants, but people closely following the rule think the agency could miss that date by months. Among other omens, EPA hasn’t yet submitted the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, a process that normally takes 30 to 90 days.

A study has now revealed how much it would cost to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) to mitigate climate change. It would be $17.6 trillion (er, well over that amount). Proponents of CCS say it is the only feasible way to mitigate climate change because coal and natural gas are “cheap.” Is this $17.6 trillion idea simply sweeping dirt under the rug? Let’s explore that.\

Today, the COP 20 UN Climate Negotiations in Lima begin. As part of the lead-up to a global climate agreement next year in Paris, governments around the world will be discussing their commitments for emissions reduction targets. These commitments are slated to come in the form of intended nationally-determined contributions (INDCs) and are due in March 2015 — three short months from now. Canada’s most recent ADP submission, a key document that will help shape our INDCs, avoids any mention of the tar sands and our increasing inability to meet emissions targets, and outlines only a handful of inadequate “solutions.” Here are the highlights, or should we say lowlights, from the dismal proposal.
Spoiler alert: brace yourselves for some serious face palms.